One Parent wants To Move…With The Kids. What Now? In Washington State, relocation is controlled by RCW 26.09.405-560. (Here.) Under that statute, the custodial parent has a presumptive right to move with the children. The non-custodial parent can object to the move; and if they do, the courts use eleven different factors to decide whether or not the children get to go. The factors are not weighted; that is, each factor carries the same weight as the others. The Relocation Act applies to all children where here is an
What’s the Process? The process is simple: if you are moving, you have to give the other side 60 days notice, if you possibly can. The notice is here. The notice does not have to be filed with the court, initially. The other side has 30 days to file an objection with the court. The Objection is here. The court clerk sets a trial date: typically 3-4 months out. That’s because – since relocation cases affect where children go to school, where parents can work, etc. – the cases take priority.
But it is very, very important to do this correctly. Failure to do it correctly can result in a motion to make a parent – or the children – move back from wherever they just moved to. Send the notice in a timely fashion; send it certified mail. If you are objecting, file the objection with the court on time, within 30 days – and file a motion to make the parent stay here.
What Are My Chances? My experience has taught me several things:
- Arguing about school districts is a waste of time. I rarely see the courts restrict the custodial parent from moving a school district or two away.
- The reasons a parent is moving count a lot. If Mom is moving to Florida, to move in with the boyfriend she met on the Internet last week, the court is likely to make the kids stay here. If Mom has remarried, to someone in the Navy, and they are PCS’ing to San Diego, the kids are gonna go.
- Courts will do something different at the beginning than at the end. If the question is close, the chances are good that the court may make Mom stay here until trial; and at least that buys you time.
- The kids get a say. They don’t get a formal voice; you will never bring the children to court. But they can talk to an evaluator; and if they are over, say, 11 or 12, and they want to move with Mom (or stay here with Dad), the court is likely to do what they want.
Relocation Cases Are Expensive. Sending out a Notice of Relocation is cheap. Fighting – for either side – is expensive. The average relocation case, through the first month, will cost $2,500-3,500 or so. It simply requires a lot of work. And you really, really want an attorney to handle it.
FAQ: RELOCATION CASES
- How Much Does Language In The Parenting Plan Matter? As it turns out, a lot. The primary custodial parent presumption in the statute is a powerful one. Read Marriage of Fahey, a very recent Supreme Court case. There – despite the fact that the parties were doing almost a 50/50 split in practice – the court held that the designation of the mother as the “Primary Residential Parent” in the Parenting Plan gave her an unbeatable edge in the father’s attempt to keep the kids from moving.
- How Much Does It Cost to Fight? In King or Snohomish County, you can plan on spending on me, between $3,000 and $5,000 in the first month, if you are fighting a relocation case. That is true both for the moving party and the non-moving party. But fighting has two effects: sometimes you win; but sometimes, even if you look like you might lose in the end, at trial, the other side will abandon their attempt, and stay here.
BUT it is always, always driven by the facts. Call me!
In relocation cases the trial court must consider each of the factors in RCW 26.09.520 and document its findings in the findings of fact or, failing that, the record must reflect that substantial evidence was entered on each factor and the court’s oral ruling must reflect that the court considered each factor.
Bay v. Jensen, 147 Wn. App. 641, 654-56, 196 P.3d 753 (2008);
In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 894, 93 P.3d 124 (2004)
The Child Relocation Act does not apply a “best interest of the child” standard; instead, it applies 11 specific factors for the court to consider. [NOTE: These cases implicitly overrule the prior relocation decisions of In re Parentage of R.F.R., 122 Wn. App. 324, 328, 93 P.3d 951 (2004) and In re Marriage of Grigsby, 112 Wn. App. 1, 7, 57 P.3d 1166 (2002), which stated in dicta “The Relocation Act of 2000…gives courts the authority to allow or disallow relocation based on the best interests of the child.” (Grigsby)
In re Marriage of Momb, 132 Wn. App. 70, 79, 130 P.3d 406 (2006);
In re Marriage of Horner, 151 Wn.2d 884, 895, 93 P.3d 124 (2004)
The legislative intent of the Child Relocation Act is that under 50/50 parenting plans “the notice requirements apply to both parties and the presumption to neither.” This was stated by the bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Dow Constantine, in a colloquy with Representative Mike Carrell. (For admissibility of legislative history, see Statutory Construction, below.)
1 House Journal 56th Leg., Reg. Sess., at 551 (Wash. 2000)